[b]Growing Chorus Of Questions: Why Did Bush Fail To Stop Another Devastating Attack On American Soil?[/b]

Associated Press
Whenember 19, 200X

In the wake of the devastating twin nuclear explosions that utterly destroyed much of New York and San Francisco just three weeks ago, there is a growing chorus of criticism being aimed at President Bush, the Commander-In-Chief, who's ultimately responsible for protecting the American people against attacks just like these.

"The age of a government divided along party lines is over" declared Joseph Biden, Delaware Senator and longtime member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "When one part of the government fails, we all fail and we all bear the consequences and the responsibility to correct the problems."

And although President Bush is apparently keeping tight-lipped regarding the origin of the presumed pair of crude suitcase nuclear bombs that annhilated Manhattan and central San Francisco on his watch last month saying it's too early to tell the exact source of the devices that killed upwards of 400,000 people and seriously injured roughly three million in those cities, what is not a secret is the utter devastation on a horrific scale not seen since Hiroshima and Nagasaki that has been wrought upon the homeland of the "last superpower", which ironically was the only nation in history to have ever used nuclear weapons against another nation's civilian population.

Though the two nuclear bombs used were relatively small, the crippling attacks against America have pushed Federal, State and local law enforcement, medical and emergency response organizations beyond their limits. The immediate imposition of martial law in affected areas declared by President Bush, though widely supported by most Federal and State agencies and local communities, still has it's strong and vocal opponents.

"Bush is a power hungry dictator", says Jason Slacker, sophomore Political Science major at Berkeley, a school which suffered heavy damage by the attacks. "He doesn't speak for all of America, he doesn't speak for all the people. He's only trying to grab more dictatorial power when he should be cooperating with the international community to help relieve the hatred the world has for America."

Though not a widely held view, that sentiment is shared by several other students on campus. "Bush isn't doing enough to show the world that we're sorry for whatever we've done to make people around the world hate us so much. He's just making things worse", says Marketing major Stephanie Highpoints.

While this administration searches for clues as to the source of the bombs, Congressional Democrats are leading the charge for a full accounting of how such an unprecedented attack could have been allowed to occur as well as pushing hard for more international assistance by the United Nations in directly helping in the protection of the American people inside America's borders, including the use of UN Peacekeepers to assist the National Guard in maintaining civil control.

"In the wake of this recent and most terrible tragedy that has victimized so many millions of Americans, as we reach out across our land for help from our own communities, we should also not ignore the world community" says Senator Joseph Lieberman. "We should certainly welcome all the gracious assistance that the world community, NATO, the European Union and United Nations has to offer - in whatever form it may come."

As there was immediately following the WTC and Pentagon strikes of 9-11, there is a large public showing of bipartisan cooperation and support between the Republican party, which holds a slim majority of both houses of Congress, and the Democrats in Congress. But this time there is also a large measure of consternation among moderate Democrats that the Bush Administration has not been able to do enough to protect the American people.

"We support the President and we are here to assist in any way we can." says New York Senator Hillary Clinton. "But we insist on being a co-equal part of the process now more than ever before. In this time of terrible tragedies and trials, the American people deserve as much  cooperation between both parties in government regardless of which party happens to be in the majority." Senator Clinton, who is the odds-on favorite to capture the Democratic nomination for President has seen her popularity growing as her image among moderate conservatives as well as more liberal Democrats becomes even stronger.

In some areas, the twin nuclear blasts have ignited a firestorm of protests against the "heavy-handed" efforts of the Bush Adminstration in recent years in rooting out terrorism around the world. "We did it to Japan and now we're getting a taste of our own medicine" says Blaine Fasile, one of the thousands of protestors that have taken over Lafayette Park across from the Whitehouse. "What did you expect? America bombs innocent children in Afganistan, Iraq and Somalia. No wonder people hate America so much. Bush's hands are covered in the blood of millions now" says protestor Farahd Al-Imani.

Moderate Democrats, like Senators Tom Daschle and Dianne Finestein, as well as conservative Republicans such as Senator John McCain have been instrumental in reaching across the aisle in the wake of a small but vocal backlash against the Bush Adminstration's handling of the war on terrorism recently.

"This is Bush's war, not mine" says Sheila Jackson Lee, Representative from Texas. "He brought war to our own people just as he brought war to the people of Iraq." Ms. Lee's has been an outspoken critic of the Administration's handling of the war on terror for some time.

Though Bush's approval rating has once again, as expected, benefitted in the wake of these latest strikes against America, his rating is not quite as high as it was in the post-9-11 period of Bush's presidency. Then he garnered a 91% approval rating while now he only is able to muster an 87% approval rating leading some observers to suggest that George Bush is being seen as a weaker figure than the public had previously given him credit for.

As the death toll mounts daily in both cities and the awesome task of assessing the damage and searching for survivors continues, questions regarding "what" the Bush Adminstration has done so far to prevent catastrophic attacks just like this and "how" the Bush Administration could be more effective in protecting the American people will begin to grow, even while the Administration continues its own search for "who" did it.

Like Warren Buffet said, it's not a matter of if, but when.

Our borders are still wide open.

What does it take to get a fire lit under that Bush? [rolleyes]

THISISME

Where did you find that? DU? Opps, maybe lewrockwell.com.

Oddly enough, Kaiser Wilhelm II. is known for almost the same phrase.

[img]http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/pict/pk005384/index.jpg[/img]

"Ich kenne keine Parteien mehr, kenne nur noch Deutsche."
Wilhelm
Coblenz, August 26, 1914.

(Not literally, but the closest to the original meaning: There are no squibbling parties anymore, there are only Germans!)

As far as I can tell, no suitcase-sized nuke is going to kill 200,000-400,000 people.

Physicists, awake! How much space would a nuke take up if it were to have omph enough to wipe out Manhattan?

Based on the limited knowlege I have, you are probably looking at something in a van. Suitcase nukes seem 007, given the technology that is available.

I saw a program on Fox a few months ago and they said the missing Russian suitcase type nukes can basically destroy a modern 65,000 seat stadium. With the fallout there could be a lot more deaths though.

THISISME

I figgered ~200K/city and I chose two densly packed cities for concentrated effect. Just a rough guess though.

What a shame the Democratic National Convention wasn't being held in NYC or SanFran at the time...

I sincerely doubt, however, that such an act would brand Hillary a "moderate" or McCain a "conservative". That would require much heavier physics than a mere atam bomb.

The responses from the Berkley crowd are spot-on, of course..... sadly.

Edited to add:

Besides, they'd probably take the nuke and park it across the street from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and wait for the President to be holding a full Cabinet meeting. One flash, and BOOM, no government. Perfect decapitation, and the country is thrown into confusion.

They could also park it across from the Capitol Building and wait for the State of the Union. Even if they keep a few key individuals away, what makes you think the Berkley Nuts wouldn't call him/her a dictator and foment all kinds of hell?

I design business systems for a living. I would just LOVE to see the plans (if any) that exist that address continuity of government. I'm sure they'de make a riveting read...

Small...VERY small...relatively speaking.  Small enough to be transported by a couple of men.

The exact size is dependent on the level of technology employed in the design and manufacturing of the bomb.  A Teller-Ulam two stage thermonuclear device can most likely be made small enough to fit in a large steamer trunk (3x3x5) and still have the bang to wipe out much of a large mertopolitian area.  Certainly a van would be much easier but I don't think it would be required.  That was one of the major goals during the nuclear build-up of the Fifties and Sixties...make 'em smaller and lighter.  For example, the B-61 bomb still in our nuclear inventory, is a relatively small device that can be used as either a tactical or strategic weapon.  Depending on the mission and the mod of the bomb, it can deliver a selectable yield of between 0.3, 1.5, 5, 10, 45, 60, 60, 80, 170, and 340 kilotons.  I can assure you that anything from 10kt on up will wipe out most of NYC or SF.  Besides the physics package, you need a battery power supply and that makes the device larger and heavier...so a large trunk would be necessary.

The physics package or warhead section of the bomb is actually quite small, though relatively heavy.  A picture can be found at this link:  [url]http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/FP/projects/nucwcost/b61.htm[/url].

Note that the short, shiny tublular section shown on the left center is the physics package.  The rest of the "stuff" in the picture is all the junk necessary to make the device a viable, deliverable weapon.

Now...the scary thing is that a single-stage implosion weapon...with the proper boosting, can be made even smaller and still have enough energy to wipe out all of Manhattan.  THAT is within the capabilities of most nations today.  Given the time and resources, Saddam might be able to build one...give it to Al Qaeda (Plausable deniability anyone?) and then sit back and watch the fireworks!

One of the most destructive tests ever done at the Nevada Test Site in the Fifties was the Knothole test involving an 11" artillery piece...called the Atomic Cannon.  Although "only" a 15kt weapon the fuzed detonation altitude was found to be perfect to set up a sympathetic additive shock wave that did immense damage to the surrounding test structures.  Here is a link to the web site:  [url]http://www.vce.com/grable.html[/url].

So...if the Army can pack 15kt into a 280mm shell...I guess an enemy might be able to make a pretty small bomb that would wipe out most of a city.

Sorry...[V]